By Rainer Chr. Hennig

The European Court of Human Rights has slammed
the French judiciary for using unreasonable long time in proceeding
against a Rwandan clergyman, who was charged with genocide compliancy
nine years ago. Human rights groups hold that French courts have been
unwilling to abide by its obligation to try suspected perpetrators
of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

In June and July 1995 a number of criminal complaints lodged in France
alleged that a Catholic clergyman - a Rwandan citizen who at the time
was residing in France and serving as a curate - had taken part in acts
of genocide in his former parish in Kigali. A judicial investigation
was opened into offences of genocide and torture in particular. The
judicial investigation is however still pending.

Yvonne Mutimura, a French national of Rwandan descent, is one of the
many individuals being a civil party in the proceeding against the Rwandan
curate. After years of inactivity by the French judiciary, Ms Mutimura
filed a complaint against the French government to the Strasbourg-based
European Court of Human Rights, claiming her right to a hearing within
a reasonable time and her right to an effective remedy had been violated.

In a landmark ruling, the Strasbourg court yesterday sided with
Ms Mutimura in all points. The court seldom moves against a state
regarding the "reasonable time" of a court case, and its ruling thus
is seen as a strong criticism against the French judiciary's performance
in issues relating to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

According to the unanimous ruling of the human rights court, the
circumstances of the case against the Rwandan clergyman could not
justify that, after more than eight years and eight months, the case was
still pending before the investigating judge. The Strasbourg judges
"considered that that length did not satisfy the 'reasonable time'
requirement" in European Convention on Human Rights, according to a
press release by the Court.

Yesterday's ruling in Strasbourg today was celebrated by human rights
groups, who have been sceptical towards the French judiciary's treatment
of Rwandan genocide cases. The Paris-based International Federation
for Human Rights (FIDH) today said that the court's decision "gives a
renewed unquestionable hope for Rwandan victims that are waiting for
justice to be done in France."

FIDH noted that the great majority of Rwandan genocide victims filing
cases in France indeed had been made waiting too long and that none of
them had succeeded to date. Cases related to the Rwandan genocide had in
general been met by "a certain coolness by French judiciary authorities,"
the human rights grouping said.

This "coolness" by French courts on several occasions has been seen in
relationship to the coolness experienced between the Paris government
and present authorities in Rwanda - although this allegation is not
sustained by French authorities.

The non-regarding of a "reasonable time" to pursue Rwandan genocidal
crimes in French courts is also seen against the stark contrast of
the French judiciary's efforts to put Rwanda's President Paul Kagame in
connection with a 1994 rocket attack on an aircraft in Kigali, killing
the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and setting off the genocide.

The prominent French anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguií¨re has
led "investigations" into the 1994 Kigali attack and, according to the
French daily 'Le Monde', in a not published report found President Kagame
responsible for the attack and the UN responsible of covering up the
incident. Mr Kagame at that time led the RPF rebels, who freed Rwanda
from the French-backed regime organising the genocide.

The accusations by judge Bruguií¨re have been forcefully rejected by
Rwandan authorities and the UN. Earlier this week, the UN presented
an aircraft's "black box" that had been put in connection with the
1994 Kigali incident by the French judge, documenting that this
evidence recording instrument had nothing to do with the said incident.

Archived Sections

Working Groups

More from GPF

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.